Romero v. Shih

Summary

The court held that California law does not categorically prohibit an implied easement from effectively preventing the servient-tenement owner from making most practical uses of the easement area. The controlling inquiry remains whether clear evidence shows that the parties to the property transaction intended the preexisting use to continue, with the scope of the easement determined by that intent. The court reversed and remanded for the Court of Appeal to determine whether substantial evidence supports the trial court's finding of an implied easement.